Now that I know that corps add limited value to German C&C, here is what I am doing T40 in my game with Mehring. Panzer Armee 2 has all units reporting to Guderian. Note that in the particular case of Guderian as Army commandwer with mobile unit directly reporting, the mobile unit never fails the mech check. I left XXIV corps with Schewppenburg in case the army spreads out. 18th Army (Model) has all units reporting except XXXXIII corps (Henrici who I have not elevated to army command yet). Recall 18 army was key to the seizure of Lenningrad, then Moscow in this game and we have high hopes for it in the south. 17th Army has all units reporting to Reinhardt except III Panzer corps (Mackensen).

High ranking corps commanders not needed in the armies command corps reporting directly to army group so the armies with no corps stay under the C&C limit (currently 24).

As I have the AP to replace other Army commanders - more and more corps will disappear.

I'm working on a post on my thoughts on how to restore the more general usefulness of German corps commanders should the designers be so inclined.

Now that I know that corps add limited value to German C&C, here is what I am doing T40 in my game with Mehring. Panzer Armee 2 has all units reporting to Guderian. Note that in the particular case of Guderian as Army commandwer with mobile unit directly reporting, the mobile unit never fails the mech check. I left XXIV corps with Schewppenburg in case the army spreads out. 18th Army (Model) has all units reporting except XXXXIII corps (Henrici who I have not elevated to army command yet). Recall 18 army was key to the seizure of Lenningrad, then Moscow in this game and we have high hopes for it in the south. 17th Army has all units reporting to Reinhardt except III Panzer corps (Mackensen).

High ranking corps commanders not needed in the armies command corps reporting directly to army group so the armies with no corps stay under the C&C limit (currently 24).

As I have the AP to replace other Army commanders - more and more corps will disappear.

I'm working on a post on my thoughts on how to restore the more general usefulness of German corps commanders should the designers be so inclined.

Thats not the bigger issue which you have seemed to forgotten.

Remember this game has 2 sides GHC + SHC.

Constantly nerfing one side unbalances the game.

At the present time "if" GHC Corps are not disbanded SHC C&C is far better and I mean completely and totally better then GHC C&C.

SHC C&C needs a major nerf. The current ruleset as far as C&C goes is non historical to the point of being The Lord of The Rings.

Historicaly SHC C&C sucked, but currently its far better then GHC C&C.

What you want to do will only make GHC = SHC which again is not historical

With a 3 point nerf to all leadership values the Soviet will never be able to do anything. The majority of their movement allowance will never allow a mechanized deliberate attack. The best hope for column shifts for an infantry attack will be 50% or less, resulting in an actual decrease of combat ability across the board. According to the formulas that we are told about, an essential 30% decrease in ALL values will result in halving all capabilities. You are basically saying that the BEST Soviet leadership value should be a 6 - a ranking that you have repeatedly said is 'barely adequate'. The AVERAGE ranking for most leadership values for the Soviets is around 4.8. Your -3 modifier will make this average = 1.8. The Soviets will be lucky to win a combat at all, let alone have any kind of mobility/refit/etc. ability at all.

I agree that some sort of modifier should be in place in 41 and possibly 42, but -3 to everything is just too much.

With a 3 point nerf to all leadership values the Soviet will never be able to do anything. The majority of their movement allowance will never allow a mechanized deliberate attack. The best hope for column shifts for an infantry attack will be 50% or less, resulting in an actual decrease of combat ability across the board. According to the formulas that we are told about, an essential 30% decrease in ALL values will result in halving all capabilities. You are basically saying that the BEST Soviet leadership value should be a 6 - a ranking that you have repeatedly said is 'barely adequate'. The AVERAGE ranking for most leadership values for the Soviets is around 4.8. Your -3 modifier will make this average = 1.8. The Soviets will be lucky to win a combat at all, let alone have any kind of mobility/refit/etc. ability at all.

I agree that some sort of modifier should be in place in 41 and possibly 42, but -3 to everything is just too much.

Not really, the BIG Z is in Stavka which changes the over all picture by allot.

There is only,

Stavka Fronts Armies.

Zhukov because if the what rmonical has pointed out alrdy " The base used for leader checks is 10, 20, 40, 80 for corps, army, army group and high command. If the army is the first level in the command chain, then the base rachets down to 10, 20, 40. "

So all the crappies SHC leaders become a non factor in the rolls.(which is same thing GHC does without Corp) Then put armies under Stavka and SHC has an easy exploit at there finger tips.

Again look at both sides objectively if thats possible and not just at nerfing the same old side over and over.

The current leadership "tree" can and is being exploited by both sides, not just one. knowingly or unknowingly.

The current leadership ruleset heavy favors SHC over 212 turns. That is NOT historical in any way shape or form.

Last time I checked historically GHC C&C was light yrs ahead of SHC C&C not worse as the current system is working.

This issue is very much like NM, which I was proven to be right or 1/2 right, but a yr later.

NM has not been working as intended from release and the same goes for the leadership tree. I am right about this issue just the same way I have been right about NM, ignoring it is not going to change the fact that its screwed up for whatever reason.

Sure a fix is needed, but that fix needs to make GHC C&C better then SHC C&C not nerf and alrdy crappy GHC C&C.

I'm sorry, you are mixing up questions of game design and player exploits with somewhat contentious judgements.

The Soviet command system was, to use my local language, a complete guddle in the period June-October 1941. By late 1942 they had sorted out the worst and had a very effective command structure that gave them the tools to implement the model of warfare the Soviets developed - in part out of bitter practice in part by disintering the theories lost in the 1937 purge. I'd say that by 1943 it was, in terms it was devised to be, every bit as effective as anything used by the Germans or the Allies (ie in the hands of incompetents or when they made mistakes it failed badly, but on balance it amplified the competence of their commanders).

Now if, in-game, the Soviet player links armies-Stavka to exploit a flaw that is pretty gamey. For the most part units were assigned to Stavka when drawn back into reserve. But that wasn't consistent, the armies involved the Volkhov-Tikhvin battles in Oct-Dec 1941 were linked to Stavka and it was the command overload that was creating which saw the creation of the 'Volkhov Front'.

_____________________________

AARs: WiTE: The Great Patriotic War; A Grey Steppe Eagle WiTW: Once Upon a Time (somewhere)in the West;Fischia il vento Others at AGEOD

If Pelton's contention is right that the Germans do better WITHOUT the corps, it is NOT just the Soviet command structure than needs to be fixed. And you can't address it by just down grading Z's rating in 41 and then increasing his rating latter.

At the heart of it, you have a major problem with the command structure in not providing a proper purpose for each command level.

So both issues have to be addressed so that:

1) The German player has a disincentive in disbanding his corps structure. 2) The Soviet command structure reflects reality in 41.

A potential suggestion:

a) German Army commands can only have XX number of division directly attached (say 5 or 8); all other divisions have to trace supply through a corps HQ to the army HQ. Otherwise, they are considered out of supply.

b) Z's initiative is reduce by 3 in 41, 1 in 42 and 0 in 43 and beyond. Alternatively, you could reduce the die initiative die roll by one for each level in the command chain it goes up in 41 by 1, 1/2 in 42 and 0 in 43 and beyond. Stavka can only have X number of divisions directly attached; similar to the Germans.

This would disincent the Germans from disbanding Corps HQs and put a decrease on the Soviet initative rating in 41 and 42.

a) German Army commands can only have XX number of division directly attached (say 5 or 8); all other divisions have to trace supply through a corps HQ to the army HQ. Otherwise, they are considered out of supply.

This would disincent the Germans from disbanding Corps HQs and put a decrease on the Soviet initative rating in 41 and 42.

The only problem with that is there are not enough Corp to go around and not enough armies to support all the Corp/divisions.

You have to have the Corp mean something, right now it slows down replasements, causes more losses, causes lower MP's ect ect ect

The SHC C&C is more cost effective in every way shape or form.

If your not disbanding Corp as GHC your shooting yourself in the foot.

1. SHC leadership numbers need to be lowered and the roll system changed to reflex the lack of a layer of HQ's 2. GHC needs a reason to bother to have Corp HQ's, they are a handy cap right now.

Dont forget 1937-9, "The purge of the army removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to five-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to three- and four-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts),[30] 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars"

Russians simply had more and Germans less with each passing year. Nothing changed as far as tactics went. Its the same stuff when you read book after book or the accounts given by soldiers on both side.

I see that the SHC C&C is the same as GHC C&C so agian your nerfing only one side.

WWII GHC and SHC were nothing even close to equal.

Unless I am reading it wrong I will take the extra 400,000 men, and 2x as many SU per battle, GHC leaders are far better then SHC so I will still win as many or slightly more rolls. So I know that deleting Corps will only have a positive effect in long run.

I am kinda stupid I know but I do not see any difference in your checks from one side to other.

I also fail to see how your nerfing SHC biggest exploit, armies under SHC HC? Sure it was done historically, but that doesn't mean it did not blow historically.

Russians simply had more and Germans less with each passing year. Nothing changed as far as tactics went. Its the same stuff when you read book after book or the accounts given by soldiers on both side.

How can one maintain a supply net if the corps HQs are eliminated? All units would have to be within 5 hexes/20 MPs

This is the part I wonder about in practice. Supply levels have a noticeable impact on CV. Almost all of my experience is as Soviet to this point, but units sitting on rails and not within supply range of their parent HQ get crap supplies on their own. Do the German units perform these 'midnight requisitions' better?

The idea is that the Army acts as a super corps for the units within 5 hexes. That is why there are still a few corps hanging around. For example, I still have two corps attached to 2nd Panzer Army even though all of the divisions are currently reporting into the Army. I am not disbanding all of the corps-just some. I am just recognizing they currently add no value if the combat units are within 5 hexes of the army HQ AND the corps commander ratings are one or more less than the army commander's.

On this, Flav and I totally agree. By mid to late 44, the Soviet's were running some very sophisticated operations - easily the equal of anything except Overlord the Allies did and the equal of the Germans.

On an individual platoon level, the Soviets may have never measured up to the Germans, but at the division levels after 43, they did measure up and, in some ways, surpassed the Germans. By 44, many of the staff officers and division commanders had been in place for over a year and had gotten very good at using the resources they had.

And at some of the highest levels, for example, intelligence and operational surprise, the Soviets ran rings around the Germans from Stalingrad till the end of the war.

As far as there not being enough German Corps, I wasn't suggesting just a blanket change. You would have to make some changes in how many divisions the corps could manage or Pelton's right - the Germans run out of Corp before they run out of divisions.

The point is, if he is right - and I haven't tested it but on first look he seems right - the game is doing just the opposite of what it should do. Reward bad behavior by giving manpower and better command steamlining for elimination of a an entire Corp level structure that actually HELPED the Germans in the real war.

As far as the Soviets go, I think you could "fix" that problem a couple of different ways. Lowering Zs rating is one; adding a penalty for each initiate level above the Front is another; potentially revising all the Soviet's command rating and increasing them over time is another; giving a minus for 41 and 42.

I think the German issue is much harder to fix. Right now, it looks like you can keep a few corps around to stretch the supply line between armies, but you can dismantle most of them.

I think the fundamental problem here that isn't addressed by the system is that doing away with the Soviet corps in 41 should overload the Soviet army level leaders/HQs. If you imagine every Soviet division as an HQ, which effectively they are, then it becomes obvious (to me at least) what the solution should be.That is, limit the number of HQs (or units) that a leader/HQ combination can command effectively. So for instance, an average German corps leader/HQ would be able to command 4 divisional level HQs no problem.So would a Soviet leader/HQ, but when the Soviet corps level disappears in early 41 the army level leaders/HQs are going to have ten or twelve HQs (i.e divisions) to command and are going to become overloaded.To disband the German corps HQs in this case would be suicide. The Soviet army level leader/HQ command rating could gradually increase through to late 42, but the real easing of the problem would only come with the mass formation of corps in 43, which is historically correct. It just needs sorting out what penalties would result from the 41/42 overloading.I would think a steady lowering of leader ratings as the load increases would be one way to simulate the consequences of overloading.

This system would work for higher level HQs as well. For instance it would stop massed Stavka armies from being so effective.You could still have them but too many HQs directly under Stavka command would start to adversely effect the supreme command's ability to function properly, as indeed they should.

ORIGINAL: Pelton Russians simply had more and Germans less with each passing year. Nothing changed as far as tactics went. Its the same stuff when you read book after book or the accounts given by soldiers on both side.

The real problem is very simple. For some reason, if you assign a unit to an Army HQ, the base chance for the Army HQ change - which also changes the modifiers for HQs above it. If the Army HQ modifier remained a constant (always using a d20 for the ability checks) then you would make the rules/code easier AND illustrate the advantages of having a German Corps level.

The game also has Soviet Airborne Corps HQs that last the entire game. Not only does this allow a drop of brigade strength units, but also illustrates why they are elite because there is another ability check.

If the modifiers stay the same then having an additional Corps level check is obviously better than not having the additional check. Problem solved for justification of the Corps level of command.

If the SHC level is ALWAYS a d80 check, then Zhukov's effect on a single combat is very slight and more of a miracle than anything else.

If I keep bitching an moaning long enough bugs are found = national morale being bugged from release to date and someone finally found the bug smarter then me. Finally GHC NM will not be 60 from 41 to 45

If I keep bitching an moaning long enough someone smarter then me will come up with a great idea.

Great idea now we have to make some noise to get it put into game.

There is some sht wrong with the current GHC armament / manpower from 43+ The next thing on the list to get fixed/debugged.

The real problem is very simple. For some reason, if you assign a unit to an Army HQ, the base chance for the Army HQ change - which also changes the modifiers for HQs above it. If the Army HQ modifier remained a constant (always using a d20 for the ability checks) then you would make the rules/code easier AND illustrate the advantages of having a German Corps level.

The game also has Soviet Airborne Corps HQs that last the entire game. Not only does this allow a drop of brigade strength units, but also illustrates why they are elite because there is another ability check.

If the modifiers stay the same then having an additional Corps level check is obviously better than not having the additional check. Problem solved for justification of the Corps level of command.

If the SHC level is ALWAYS a d80 check, then Zhukov's effect on a single combat is very slight and more of a miracle than anything else.